The current civil forfeiture procedural protections for property owners, though inadequate, are often much stronger than protections in criminal forfeiture cases. Most states have only civil forfeiture statutes or criminal forfeiture statutes that are seldom used. Few of those state-originated cases end up as criminal forfeitures because they are so weak that no prosecutor would bring a criminal charge. This partly explains why reform groups have neglected the pressing need for criminal forfeiture reform. However, if one can afford to pay for a competent attorney, the reformed civil forfeiture process is considerably more protective of property owners than the unreformed criminal forfeiture process. Thus, reformers should focus at least as much of their efforts on long-overdue reforms of the criminal forfeiture process.

Hettinga v. United States was a revealing case in more ways than one. Not only did the key legal precedents cited by Brown involve judicial surrender to special-interest legislation, but those cases—just like Hettinga’s—also involved an established industry triumphing over an upstart competitor who sought to entice consumers with an attractive and affordable alternative. In other words, if you want to understand the unsavory state of economic liberty in America today, look no further than the dairy lobby’s unwholesome winning streak in federal court.

No one should be convicted of a crime if no reasonable person would have known, and if the defendant did not know, that the conduct charged against him was criminal. Former U.S. Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and Michael Mukasey have endorsed the adoption of a mistake of law defense, and criminal law scholars have long argued that strict liability crimes lead to conviction of persons who are, morally speaking, innocent. A recent paper by Senator Ted Cruz gives further reason to believe that Congress may debate the continued legitimacy of the rule that neither ignorance nor a mistake of law can excuse criminal liability.

Anxiety about the burqa is not just provoked by its appearance but also by the attitude towards Australians and their society of those who wear it. What we think about the burqa is one thing; what those who wear it think about us is a different and equally important question. However, the ends ostensibly served by a burqa ban do not justify the intolerant means. But such a position still leaves issues about the burqa unresolved.

After Indiana caved by amending its Religious Freedom Restoration Act, many on the left cheered, claiming a defeat social conservatism. The media, and others, held up Indiana as an example of a weakening conservative movement and isolation of Christianity in America. Christians and social conservatives, however, will not lay down without a fight. All across America, tens of millions of Christians have banded together to win significant victories for religious freedom. Whether successfully opposing boycotts or defending targets of leftist hate, it is clear that social conservatism and Christianity have not yet lost the fight for the soul of America.

The Supreme Court has issued a decision, stating that same-sex marriage is a constitutionally protected right. This radical redefinition of marriage will endanger religious freedom across all 50 states, as we've already seen the media and corporate elites falsely equate the protection of traditional marriage with racism. In the first book to respond to the Supreme Court decision, Ryan Anderson draws on the best philosophy and social science to explain what marriage is, why it matters for public policy, and the consequences of its legal redefinition.

Thanks to Kelo, one’s home is one’s castle only until the government thinks someone else can build a better castle. Cronyism is bad enough when favors are provided to politically connected interests through subsidies and other special treatment. Kelo has made it easy for government officials to benefit their friends and politically connected businesses using the awesome power of eminent domain. States have responded by passing laws intended to provide protection from these economic development takings—but Congress has failed to take meaningful action in the decade since this landmark decision. At the tenth anniversary of Kelo, Congress should provide property owners in all states necessary protection against economic development and closely related takings, including abusive takings based on overly broad blight laws.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. City of New London sparked considerable public outrage. The prospect that any homeowner could lose his or her house and property to a corporation whose operation a city thought could better serve its needs generated uncertainty and fear. But that day has passed. The tenth anniversary of Kelo is marked more by public sufferance of the Supreme Court’s ruling than by continued public outrage. The Supreme Court has not returned to the subject, and its decision therefore stands as the Court’s last word on the meaning of the Public Use Clause. The problem for the public and property rights advocates is that Kelo has been forgotten. If Kelo should return to prominence because some state or city prefers B to A as a property owner, the Constitution will likely offer property owners no protection against whatever public benefits a majority of a state or local government can imagine.

Despite civil asset forfeiture’s noble intentions, the many stories of innocent victims and law enforcement abuses prove that the pendulum has swung too far in favor of law enforcement. In reforming forfeiture laws, however, we must be careful not to swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. The process should be made fairer and more transparent, the profit incentive of forfeiture should be abolished or severely constrained, and there should be greater oversight. Civil asset forfeiture should be returned to its original purpose: penalizing those who seek to profit from their illegal activities. If such funds were deposited into the general treasury, nothing would preclude law enforcement authorities from going to Congress or their state legislatures and seeking an increase in their budgets or victims’ compensation funds.

The longstanding use of the Dormant Commerce Clause should count as part of our “prescriptive Constitution,” precisely because it advances the cause of economic competition that the broad assumption of a unitary Congressional power frustrates. Justice Scalia has his guns directed at the wrong judicial doctrine. Justice Thomas, to his credit, has long taken just this position on the affirmative commerce power, most notably in his concurrence in the 1995 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Lopez. Thus on taxation matters like those in Maryland v. Wynn, Justice Alito kept the Dormant Commerce Clause on course by striking down the Maryland tax.

The Constitution Features

On a variety of fronts—Medicaid mandates, individual health insurance mandates, national education standards—state governments are vigorously pushing back against an overweening federal establishment. This resistance to federal power includes a number of folks who are promoting a remedy that has never yet been employed in our nation’s history—a convention for...

In the bygone analog era of mass media and telecommunications, government officials seized power to regulate speech in ways one might have thought violated the First Amendment. For instance, by proclaiming the radio spectrum a scarce public resource requiring regulation to prevent broadcast signals interfering with each other, the Federal...

It may help to remember that uncertainty about America’s prospects is not new. As Benjamin Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia for the last time, a woman asked him: “What have you given us?” He answered: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
A republican form of government is about...

On February 17, 2010, at Collingwood mansion, near George Washington’s home at Mount Vernon, Virginia, some 80 conservative leaders gathered to sign the Mount Vernon Statement. Reproduced in full below, the Mount Vernon Statement is an affirmation of republican self-government based on the rule of law as expressed by the...

September 17 is Constitution Day. For every citizen who honors and upholds that document’s principles, this is a great day to celebrate and a great opportunity to educate our fellow citizens about what it means to be an American.
A last-minute provision to the “Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005” transformed...

Paul Jacob is a father of three who has worked tirelessly to advance liberty over the past several decades. His radio program, “Common Sense,” runs on 150 radio stations in 48 states. He has been called a “rising star in politics” by Campaigns & Elections magazine and dubbed one of...